An unfamiliar view from the south of the inner wall and structure of the Flavian amphitheatreOn the 29th October I began a quick trek around Europe. The main purpose of the trip was to deliver a boat from Sardinia to Palma da Mallorca. The first leg of the journey was from Dublin to Rome. I had originally calculated a possible 2 hours 30 minutes in Rome but my flight to Rome was delayed on the ground. When I finally arrived I was left in a bit of a dilemma; there was just over two hours to my next flight and any contemplated trip to Rome would be all too brief. What could possibly achieved by travelling into Rome for such a short period of time? On the other hand, there are few experiences as nauseating as languishing in an airport terminal for a couple of hours.
After inspecting the train times I decided to buy a return ticket for the train. In Italy trains arrive and depart on time, and the success of this little leap of faith was dependant upon this prior experience of Italian rail travel. Fortunately, there were to be no surprises and I arrived in time and made my way to the Flavian amphitheatre, cherishing any sights of the eternal city as I went. Even as the train arrived into Stazion Termini I was captivated by the walls of the ancient city, a large triumphal gate and basilica.
First view of the Flavian amphitheatre or ColosseumFollowing a forced march of about 14 minutes (there was not a moment to be lost), I glanced to my left and caught my first sight of the attic storey of the amphitheatre towering above the Roman skyline. As you get closer the immensity of the structure becomes more apparent. It is the largest amphitheatre in the Roman world measuring 189 meters by 156 meters. Only the amphitheatres at Pozzuoli, which was also built under the reigns of Vespasian (9A.D. - 79A.D.) and Titus (39A.D. - 81A.D.), and Capua come close. For a building that is nearly 2000 years old you cannot but be impressed by the scale of the structure and a moment later its purpose.
View of damage to the south side caused by an earthquake in 1349The construction of the amphitheatre was commenced under the Emperor Vespasian circa 72 A.D., completed by Titus and dedicated in 79 A.D. Cassius Dio in his Roman Histories, Epitome, Book LXVI, XXV describes the spectacles, and entertainments, recording the events in some detail:
"in dedicating the hunting-theatre and the baths that bear his name he produced many remarkable spectacles. There was a battle between cranes and also between four elephants; animals both tame and wild were slain to the number of nine thousand; and women (not those of any prominence, however) took part in dispatching them. As for the men, several fought in single combat and several groups contended together both in infantry and naval battles. For Titus suddenly filled this same theatre with water and brought in horses and bulls and some other domesticated animals that had been taught to behave in the liquid element just as on land.
He also brought in people on ships, who engaged in a sea-fight there, impersonating the Corcyreans and Corinthians; and others gave a similar exhibition outside the city in the grove of Gaius and Lucius, a place which Augustus had once excavated for this very purpose. There, too, on the first day there was a gladiatorial exhibition and wild-beast hunt, the lake in front of the images having first been covered over with a platform of planks and wooden stands erected around it.
On the second day there was a horse-race, and on the third day a naval battle between three thousand men, followed by an infantry battle. The "Athenians" conquered the "Syracusans" (these were the names the combatants used), made a landing on the islet and assaulted and captured a wall that had been constructed around the monument. These were the spectacles that were offered, and they continued for a hundred days; but Titus also furnished some things that were of practical use to the people. He would throw down into the theatre from aloft little wooden balls variously inscribed, one designating some article of food, another clothing, another a silver vessel or perhaps a gold one, or again horses, pack-animals, cattle or slaves. Those who seized them were to carry them to the dispensers of the bounty, from whom they would receive the article named."
The design of the amphitheatre was in itself innovative. The amphitheater had no Hellenic precedent and many similar Roman structures prior to the building of the Flavian amphitheater were temporary wooden structures; the historians Suetonius and Tacitus both record that the Emperor Nero built a large wooden amphitheater at the Campus Martius in 56 A.D. However, It is not possible to state with any certainty whether these were eliptical in format or not. The facade of the amphitheater is loosely based upon the Theatre of Marcellus in Rome, which was inaugurated by Augustus in 12 B.C., and in particular the manner in which the classical orders were used to decorate the arcaded facade of the structure.
The outer wall comprised three stories of superimposed arcades surmounted by a podium and attic story, both of which are pierced by windows interspersed at regular intervals. There is a hierarchical progression in the representation of the orders on the facade which frame the arcades. The lower storey is decorated with the Doric order, second story with the Ionic, the third story with the highly decorative Corinthian order, and finally the attic and podium with Corinthian pilasters.
"in dedicating the hunting-theatre and the baths that bear his name he produced many remarkable spectacles. There was a battle between cranes and also between four elephants; animals both tame and wild were slain to the number of nine thousand; and women (not those of any prominence, however) took part in dispatching them. As for the men, several fought in single combat and several groups contended together both in infantry and naval battles. For Titus suddenly filled this same theatre with water and brought in horses and bulls and some other domesticated animals that had been taught to behave in the liquid element just as on land.
He also brought in people on ships, who engaged in a sea-fight there, impersonating the Corcyreans and Corinthians; and others gave a similar exhibition outside the city in the grove of Gaius and Lucius, a place which Augustus had once excavated for this very purpose. There, too, on the first day there was a gladiatorial exhibition and wild-beast hunt, the lake in front of the images having first been covered over with a platform of planks and wooden stands erected around it.
On the second day there was a horse-race, and on the third day a naval battle between three thousand men, followed by an infantry battle. The "Athenians" conquered the "Syracusans" (these were the names the combatants used), made a landing on the islet and assaulted and captured a wall that had been constructed around the monument. These were the spectacles that were offered, and they continued for a hundred days; but Titus also furnished some things that were of practical use to the people. He would throw down into the theatre from aloft little wooden balls variously inscribed, one designating some article of food, another clothing, another a silver vessel or perhaps a gold one, or again horses, pack-animals, cattle or slaves. Those who seized them were to carry them to the dispensers of the bounty, from whom they would receive the article named."
The design of the amphitheatre was in itself innovative. The amphitheater had no Hellenic precedent and many similar Roman structures prior to the building of the Flavian amphitheater were temporary wooden structures; the historians Suetonius and Tacitus both record that the Emperor Nero built a large wooden amphitheater at the Campus Martius in 56 A.D. However, It is not possible to state with any certainty whether these were eliptical in format or not. The facade of the amphitheater is loosely based upon the Theatre of Marcellus in Rome, which was inaugurated by Augustus in 12 B.C., and in particular the manner in which the classical orders were used to decorate the arcaded facade of the structure.
The outer wall comprised three stories of superimposed arcades surmounted by a podium and attic story, both of which are pierced by windows interspersed at regular intervals. There is a hierarchical progression in the representation of the orders on the facade which frame the arcades. The lower storey is decorated with the Doric order, second story with the Ionic, the third story with the highly decorative Corinthian order, and finally the attic and podium with Corinthian pilasters.
Detail of the third storey and attic levelThe amphitheatre remained in use for over 400 years being upgraded and decorated by successive emperors. In that time it survived fires, numerous earthquakes, and in 217 A.D. it was closed for a 5 year period after being struck by lightning. With the demise and contraction of the city of Rome the amphitheatre like many others was converted to urban use, and the stone and marble was stripped for other structures in the city. A church was built into the structure and the amphitheatre became inhabited finally being converted into a castle by the Frangipani family. A clearing and restoration of the amphitheatre began in the early 18th century.
Detail of the lower levelsThe arch of Constantine is situated a stones throw from the Flavian amphitheatre. Viewing the arch gives you an insight into a number of eras of Roman artistic styles and sculptural traditions. The simple reason for this is that much of the ornament and sculpture on the arch was taken from earlier periods and monuments. Not only was there a practice of reusing earlier sculpture and ornament, also known as spolia, during the period but there is also evidence to suggest that sites themselves were reused and regenerated. Where the arch of Constantine now stands archaeologists have found the remains of earlier foundations, and theories suggest that structures dating to the periods of Domitian and Hadrian may have occupied the site prior to 315 A.D.
View of the Arch of Constantine from the northWhether the construction was quick or the quality of carving and building suffered from an economic slump, it worth noting that the choice of the reliefs has been done with some care and aplomb; the clear object being to create a strong and recognisable political message. The inference was that Constantine as Emperor was to be seen in a similar light and compared to his successful and popular predecessors such as Trajan (53A.D.- 117A.D.), Hadrian (76A.D.- 138A.D.) and Marcus Aurelius (121A.D.- 180A.D.).
The Roman Senate was paying tribute to Constantine, but he himself was probably eagerly seeking support and to strenghten his image and popularity in that part of the Roman world. Another point in support of this theory is the obvious reference point to the arch of Septimius Severus erected in 203 A.D. which is very similar in format and design and stands not too far away in the Roman Forum.
A number of theories exist debating the origins, development and history of the structure. The arch itself has a great number of sculptures and carved panel reliefs. As you look at the various reliefs and scenes depicted you can experience a brief tour and insight into sculpture and artistic traditions from the reigns' of Emperors Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and Constantine.
Relief on the attic storey of the west side from the reign of Trajan
Relief on the attic storey of the east side from the reign of TrajanThe figures of 8 Dacian soldiers standing on top of the columns on the attic story and flanking the inscription date to the reign of Trajan. Four reliefs, two of which are illustrated above, are also thought to have come from the period of Trajan and research suggests that they were taken from Trajan's forum, which was still standing and being used at the time the arch was constructed. They refer to idealised episodes of the Dacian wars and the virtues of the Emperor.
Reliefs above the eastern arch of the north sideEight roundels or tondi decorate the facade and date to the time of the reign of Hadrian, or just after it. The tondi feature hunting and sacrificial scenes and were originally set against a porphyry background as in the example above. Antoninus, Hadrian's lover, has been identified in a hunting scene on the north face and scholars have also suggested that some of the characters features have been changed to represent Constantine's family members and Constantine himself.
Reliefs above western arch of the north sideThere are rectangular panels above the tondi in the attic story, eight in total placed in pairs on either side of the inscription. Scholars are in agreement to the extent that they date from the period of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Furthermore, some writers have suggested that the panels were taken from a triumphal arch of Marcus Aurelius which was dedicated in 176 A.D. celebrating his victories over the Sarmatian and Germanic tribes. Other theories, based upon a stylistic analysis, suggest the panels have come from more than one source, but as they are all the same size the argument for more than one source may be somewhat weak.
In any event these panels were re carved and modified during the reign of Constantine to be used on the arch. The scenes represent a now similar theme of departure and preparation for campaign, addressing the armies, the campaign itself, and its aftermath including the subjugation of the enemy.
In any event these panels were re carved and modified during the reign of Constantine to be used on the arch. The scenes represent a now similar theme of departure and preparation for campaign, addressing the armies, the campaign itself, and its aftermath including the subjugation of the enemy.
Hadrianic Roundels with Constantinian relief below depicting the siege of Verona on the south sideThe depictions in the reliefs of the early 4th century represent a definite shift from the veristic approach employed by the carvers and designers from the reign of Trajan. The Constantinian craftsmen adopted a naive or impressionistic representation of the human form, while still referencing some conventions of landscape and cityscape utilised by their predecessors. The Constantinian friezes represent a narrative of important episodes and victories including the preparations for, and battle of the Milvian bridge, culminating in Constantines triumphant entrance into Rome, and addressing the people. In one very evocative scene Constantine is portrayed enthroned as dominus flanked by the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian establishing Constantine's unchallengable sovereignty and lineage.
Further Constantinian reliefs can be found in the spandrels above the arch depicting winged victories and the river gods, and low reliefs representing soldiers and prisoners can be seen in the podium base to the arch or socles.
Further Constantinian reliefs can be found in the spandrels above the arch depicting winged victories and the river gods, and low reliefs representing soldiers and prisoners can be seen in the podium base to the arch or socles.
Hadrianic Roundels with Constantinian relief below depicting the battle of the Milvian bridge on the south side
Inscription from the south facade flanked by Trajan's Dacian prisoners and the panels of Marcus AureliusTo the Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus, the Greatest, pious, fortunate, the Senate and people of Rome
on both the tyrant and his faction in one instant in rightful battle he avenged the republic,
dedicated this arch as a memorial to his military victory.
on both the tyrant and his faction in one instant in rightful battle he avenged the republic,
dedicated this arch as a memorial to his military victory.
The inscription is interesting from a number of view points. It unreservedly reflects the support of the Senate and People of Rome for the Emperor Constantine. It also goes on to announce Constantine was inspired by a divinity in defeating the tyrant Maxentius. It does not identify which god was the source of this inspiration, but it is widely thought that the reference was supportive of the Christian faith and an ongoing toleration of that faith. Did Constantine have any input or collaborate in the formualtion of the inscription? Famously, Constantine was careful not to convert to Christianity until his death bed and this may have been politically expedient at the time rather than an attempt to be absolved from all his sins near to death.
The arch in some repects represents an odd series of unusual Roman contradictions and perhaps mystery (which may be solved by a little further reading adn understanding). The arch does not commemorate a triumph publicly proclaimed in the normal way by the Emperor Contantine following his defeat of Maxentius, who had previously proclaimed himself as Emperor in 306 A.D. The Senate possibly felt somewhat uneasy and exposed after Maxentius departed Rome, and its supporting factions, to meet Constantine on the battlefield.
Another contradiction is the fact that the scenes depicted represent previous Emperors' and the Roman army's triumphs over foreign armies, thus extending and securing the Roman frontiers. This is seperate and distinct to a Roman army marching on Rome and against Romans, which had rarely happened before except in the political turmoil surrounding pivotal episodes in the careers of Sulla and Julius Caesar, and the history of late republic.
Perhaps the arch was built to patch up a number of issues and problems for all concerned. The dedication of the arch served the Senate to be reverent and proclaim their support for their Emperor. The message it bore did little to harm Constantine's grip on the Roman empire. Furthermore, the reference to divine inspiration would have been readily recognisable as a toleration of the christian faith, but also possibly was understood to be a continuation and preservation of connection between the emperor and divinity, without going so far as to proclaim himself as being divine or "DIVI".
I had very little time at the site, approximately 16 minutes, before I had to turn on my heels and run back to the station. I managed to get to the train station, out of breath, and more importantly caught the train back to the airport. Full of relief, hot and exhausted, I was very happy to have foregone the airport departure lounge and breaking away to experience the sights which I had first marvelled at through the paintings of Panini and breath taking prints of Piranesi.
Another contradiction is the fact that the scenes depicted represent previous Emperors' and the Roman army's triumphs over foreign armies, thus extending and securing the Roman frontiers. This is seperate and distinct to a Roman army marching on Rome and against Romans, which had rarely happened before except in the political turmoil surrounding pivotal episodes in the careers of Sulla and Julius Caesar, and the history of late republic.
Perhaps the arch was built to patch up a number of issues and problems for all concerned. The dedication of the arch served the Senate to be reverent and proclaim their support for their Emperor. The message it bore did little to harm Constantine's grip on the Roman empire. Furthermore, the reference to divine inspiration would have been readily recognisable as a toleration of the christian faith, but also possibly was understood to be a continuation and preservation of connection between the emperor and divinity, without going so far as to proclaim himself as being divine or "DIVI".
I had very little time at the site, approximately 16 minutes, before I had to turn on my heels and run back to the station. I managed to get to the train station, out of breath, and more importantly caught the train back to the airport. Full of relief, hot and exhausted, I was very happy to have foregone the airport departure lounge and breaking away to experience the sights which I had first marvelled at through the paintings of Panini and breath taking prints of Piranesi.
